Kanker, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.18 18:52:02 +0530 2025:CGHC:33881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3907 of 2019 Surendra S/o Pravind Chand Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Jamgaon, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. The Tahsildar Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3922 of 2019 Chinta Ram S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 55 Years Caste - Kalar, R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raripur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. The Tahsildar Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 WPC No. 3915 of 2019 Sajuram S/o Bodharam Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Jamgaon, Police Station- Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. The Tahsildar Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3913 of 2019 Sagram S/o Krishna Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Jamgaon, Police Station- Narharpur, District- North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. The Tahsildar Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3953 of 2019 Aaju S/o. Bodharam Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village- Jamgaon, Police Station- Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 3 Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District- North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. The Tahsildar Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3921 of 2019 1 - Pawan S/o Dhaniram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. The Tahsildar, Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For State For Intervenor
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate : Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17. 07.2025 1. The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and
Decision
facts; therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this 4 common order. 2. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged eviction warrants issued by the Tahsildar, Narharpur. Eviction warrants would reveal that revenue proceedings under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code, 1959”) were initiated against the petitioners, and pursuant to the final orders, eviction warrants were issued against the petitioners in the year 2019. Perusal of the warrants would further show that the petitioners had encroached over government lands, and this fact was found proved in the revenue proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar. 3. The petitioners in these petitions have stated that the Bhumiswami lease was granted to the petitioners way back in the year 2000-01, and therefore, the eviction warrants are bad in law, and this fact was not taken into consideration by the concerned Tahsildar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as lease deeds were granted in favour of the petitioner(s), they are in possession of the properties in question. He would further submit that interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioners, whereby respondents were restrained from demolishing the houses of the petitioners. He would pray that the warrants (Annexure P/1) issued against the petitioners may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and Intervenor would oppose. They would submit that revenue proceedings under Section 248 of the Code, 1959, were initiated against the petitioner(s) as they had encroached over the government land and order(s) were passed in the year 2019 itself. They would further submit that when the petitioner(s) failed to hand over the possession to the State, eviction warrants were issued by the Tahsildar. It is also contended that the petitioners have not challenged the orders passed by the Tehsildar in the different revenue cases. It is 5 further contended that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners to challenge those orders by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). They would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the eviction warrants issued by the Tahsildar, Narharpur and a paper clipping. The petitioners have placed documents to establish that lease-deeds were executed in their favour in the year 2000-01. 8. It appears that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners to place lease-deeds before the competent authority/Tahsildar. Further, the petitioners have not challenged the final orders passed in revenue cases, which have been reflected in the eviction warrants. It is an admitted fact that interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners in these petitions. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, these petitions are disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to challenge the orders passed by the Tahsildar by filing duly constituted appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) along with an application for the grant of stay. If the petitioner(s) prefer an appeal along with the application for the grant of stay, all appeals shall be decided by the authority concerned on their own merits and applications for the grant of stay shall be considered and decided by the appellate forum, preferably within a period of 30 days. For a period of 30 days, the interim order granted earlier shall remain in force. The petitioners would be at liberty to place all relevant documents before the learned appellate authority. 6 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), all the petitions are hereby disposed of. $iddhant Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge